You'll Thank Me Later

Especially if you've been supporting Republicans without knowing the facts.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Is This What You Mean by "Pro" Life?

h/t racismreview

The Tennessee report has discussed the comments of a Tennessee state representative thus:

Rep. Curry Todd remarked during a Fiscal Review Committee presentation this week that the idea of government-funded care for pregnant women [Mexican immigrants] who cannot prove they have United States government permission to be in this country struck him as not unlike inviting a rat infestation. The Collierville Republican made the comments after asking CoverKids program managers whether the state checks the citizenship status of care recipients. . . . [They] responded that CoverKids doesn’t provide medical coverage to pregnant women, but it does offer “unborn coverage …. ”Rep. Todd responded: “Well, they can go out there like rats and multiply, then, I guess.”

It's Not the Economy, Stupid! It's the Stupid!

You can just read my previous post if you haven't already. But the point is, regardless of the fears of the tea pots and kettles, the economy is don't relatively fair. It's not what anyone'd want. It's not what it would've been with a larger stimulus. But the sky isn't falling. At least not for white America. (So black folks, lets start working on our ungrammatical "Boehner Doesn't Care about Poeple" posters for our anti-Republican rallies.) Even conservative economists agree that the stimulus worked. Economists at Heritage and American Enterprise Institute agree raising taxes now would increase revenue. There's no economic value to keeping the Bush tax cuts for the rich.

So, assuming you're neither racist nor stupid even though I think you're both, exactly why are you supporting policies that have never been, and weren't supposed to be, in your economic interests? Quit blaming your stupid voting on the economy. Blame the economy on your stupid.

Some Interesting Findings about the More "Antique" Tea Pots

I haven't forgotten y'all! I've just been thinking. Taking a break from debate and just thinking. I came across the following article and found it quite thought-provoking.

Why Are Elders Stirring the Tea Party Movement?

Robert W. Stock

Contributor

(Oct. 30) -- The tea party skews old.

Media descriptions of the conservative movement's protests are incomplete without references to a Walmart's worth of wheelchairs and walkers amid a sea of gray heads. Surveys of tea party supporters have found that half are over age 55 and something like a third are 65 or older.

Why?

Many experts have suggested that the elders were motivated by fear that the Obama administration will cut their Social Security or Medicare payments. But new research into the roots of elders' political and cultural attitudes suggests there may be other factors at work as well. . . .

Read the rest of the article here.

Before I Forget: Frustrations with Conservatives

What I find very frustrating is that they wreck the economy doing one thing, then wanna blast the Democrats for trying something else to fix the economy.

For example, taxes, okay? So, W Bush lowered taxes, especially tax rates for the top brackets and on capital gains. He farther deregulated the financial market. Now the economy isn't up to snuff, and conservatives want to argue that it's the wrong time to raise taxes on anyone or anything. That regulating the market would make the economy worse. I find their logic circular and false. It leaves me confused as to how they can claim to believe the things they say. I find much of their arguments more theory than reality-based. That adds to my confusion as well. I mean, what about the facts?

A great example of what I'm talking about comes from this discussion over P6's. And now that I think about it, conservatives and professed libertarians use the same sort of circular reasoning when it comes to race as demonstrated by a discussion I had last year with a guy named Darin Johnson over at RacismReview.

Sticks and Stones . . . but Words Can Kill

I just think this is very important to remember. Washington Post's Richard Cohen, not that I'm a fan, writes:

The governor of Ohio, James Rhodes, demonized the war protesters. They were "worse than the Brownshirts and the communist element. . . . We will use whatever force necessary to drive them out of Kent."

And subsequently in 1970, four students were killed by the National Guard at Kent State.  Now of course, I wonder if Neil Young wrote a song about the Birmingham bombing and if Cohen nearly cried everytime he read it. That notwithstanding, read entire of op-ed here.

The Ice Tea Pots

"[T]he [new federal agency recently created by law], by reason of its extraordinary powers, was clearly unconstitutional..., destined to irritate [some] and paurerize [others], at a final cost of possibly hundreds of millions. ...[These] extraordinary powers...threaten the civil rights of all citizens."

Yep, change a few nouns here and there and WEB DuBois's description of the argument used by opponents to the Federal Bureau of Freedmen suddenly becomes the same arguments used by opponents of . . . well, anything Obama tries to accomplish. Cause of course, the expansion of federal powers with W Bush's creation of the Department of Homeland Security, and the expansion of local police powers with Arizona's SB 1070. Well, that's just plain ole common sense "national security."

Republicans Aren't "Hypocrits" After All!

No, I'm not deviating from the script. I still very much plan to continue my series "A Conflict of Faiths." It just so happened that I can across this op-ed I thought was really cool.

Stop calling Republicans 'hypocrites'

Posted: Sunday, August 8, 2010 10:27 pm


Tina Dupuy, guest commentary

It's not that Republicans aren't hypocrites - it's more the label just isn't an effective dig. First, hypocrite is a fancy foreign Greek word like amnesty, ethics or Europe - how is that going to appeal to Republicans? Second, espousing virtues you don't personally have to live up to is basically the point of being a Republican.

The Right is "Taking Back" the Civil Rights Movement, Remember?

Black Power's Gonna Get You Sucka:
Right-Wing Paranoia and the Rhetoric of Modern Racism
By Tim Wise

July 10, 2010

Prominent white conservatives are angry about racism.

Forget all that talk about a post-racial society. They know better than to believe in such a thing, and they’re hopping mad.

The Right Just Might Be . . . On to Something

With their whole deification of the "Founding Fathers."

Yes, it's been a very long time since my last post.  No, I haven't lost my mind or my soul in the interim. Just bare with me for a moment.

The political right has taken to going on and on about returning to the ideals of Washington, Jefferson, et al. Of course, what they're trying to get at is small government and no taxes. Their tortured relationship with the Constitution and mis-writing history notwithstanding, they may have a point about returning to the ideals of our country's founder, their racism, sexism, classism, and elitism notwithstanding. (After all, it was the slaveowning founding fathers who initially granted the right to vote exclusively to propertied white men and still felt state legislators should stand between the popular vote and the Senate.)

But still, the right just might be on to something.

Need to Know

Rep. John Murtha (PA-D) has died at age 77. I'm actually sad about that. I thought he was a cool guy who stood up for working Americans.

You know who's not standing for Americans, just corporations. The 'Publicans, who just recently gave a chilly reception Monday to President Barack Obama's invitation to discuss health care in a bipartisan, televised setting later this month, part of the White House effort to revive the stalled legislation. I'm sorry. I thought that's one of the things they've been complaining about.

Nailed It!

See?

          Bob McDodo needs to give some explanation for the Republican response! It was like State of the Union-Lite!

Well, okay. I didn't flesh everything out. But I was pretty darn close, h/t Prometheus6:

The Symbolic Politics of the Republicans

State of the Union or Civil War?

By PAUL A. PASSAVANT

The significant symbolic politics of the Republican response to President Obama’s 2010 state of the union address (SOTU) escaped comment except by Stephen Colbert [And, me! ~ No1KState] who got it right.

Hellava Job Scott Brown(ie)

These are just my initial thoughts. Maybe I'll write more later.

3 - Sarah Palin is no feminist, and if it weren't for the feminist movement of the 60s and 70s that so many conservatives decry, she would still be in Alaska. Now, to be sure, feminism is about women's equality and ability to do and say anything they like. One thing it is not about is restricting women's reproductive rights. Moreover, from what I can tell, she hasn't reached national prominence based merit; but perhaps, the lack thereof.

2 - How dare he suggest Obama was born out of wedlock. Now, I'm not hating on folks who were and are. But inference he is making, for those who support him, is crude. Obama's mother was married. Or, is it that black or biracial child born to a teen is born out-of-wedlock?

1 - If Obama's mother wasn't married when he was born, then he's a natural citizen of the US, no question about it. Tea baggers/birthers/Republicans can't have it both ways.

Initially, I was ambivalent about making calls to Massachusetts about their intrastate politics. Now, well . . . I hope it's okay to call on a holiday.

No, They're Not a Bunch of Racists

They're a bunch of racist idiots. That's different. (Or better put, they're different. Even they admit not living on the same planet as the rest of us.) If you have the time, you should read through the report yourself. It would be more entertaining if they didn't reportedly represent almost 20% of the electorate. They apparently really talked about "racism" in terms of the "race card" being played to discredit them. But what discredits them is their ideas. They think Beck is a "truth-teller" and that the Republican party is "Democrat-lite." They're convinced Obama has some secret plot that no one's talking about because Obama keeps everything closed off from the media which is liberal and shills for him anyway. They complain about his school records being closed and swear every other president kept everything wide open. They think they are the people, which makes you wonder who elected President Obama. And, if that weren't enough, they feel as though W compromised too much. Though, to their credit, they did find his public speaking embarrassing.

The whole thing is an indictment about Fox, the South, and public education. These people know diddly squat about history, civics, or economics. They fault HW for raising taxes; they don't even realize the budget- deficit the Reagan caused.

Another thing that bothers me is that they believe Obama is purposely trying to destroy the country. They're even suspicious of his support for lengthening the school year; it's a sign of his desire to regulate everything. They claim there're banks that want to pay back the bail-out money, but the Obama administration won't let them. What's worse is they don't believe he's trying to create jobs here in America. Sorry, but that's a bit hard to take after their stalwart Beck got Van Jones to resign.

All in all, they take Fox as gospel - which speaks for itself. And apparently, race did come up; it's just that those undertaking the focus groups (focus groups for political purposes as opposed to sociological purposes which explains the command to "get over it [race]") thought ". . . it did not ever become a central element, and indeed, was almost beside the point." But like I said in the earlier post, racist themes did come up, not least of the two contradictory notions that either Obama is a puppet being controlled by people like George Soros or he lies and his intelligence is scary. So, black people are always either 1 - too dumb to think of themselves or 2 - too smart to trust. Plus, the fact that the think so much of Beck? Come on. That's racism all day long.

But they need to understand, both the idiots and the group who did the study, is that the accusation of racism isn't being used to silence them. :eye roll: It's not being used to discredit them or because the media doesn't want to address their illegitimate concerns. Part of the reason we're, and I'm including myself cause I think a large segment of you are racism. But, part of the reason we accuse you of racism is that your complaints make no sense otherwise. I mean really. The president and Congress has cut taxes for 95% of you, and you complain about being overtaxed? You should be glad we think you're racist, cause otherwise you're just a bunch of idiots.

Now It's Sexism in Session(s)

I saw the clip when the show first aired. I had other things on my mind. But after seeing this article in The Nation, I decided to share just a couple of thoughts. I share Jon Stewart even though we're saying the same thing because he's funny.

1 - Should they start complaining about executive compensation, remember this:

"Congress should not be involved in writing or rewriting private contracts," he (Sessions) argued.

2 - They can't pass this, but they can go after ACORN?

The bill was, he (Sessions) maintained, a "political amendment at bottom, representing a political attack on Halliburton."

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Rape-Nuts
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Ron Paul Interview

Oh. My lord! (Updated)

See post They're Not a Bunch of Racist for more analysis.

Now. I don't know what training the people who ran this study have in race dynamics. And I haven't read the entire report (PDF), plus I'm tired, so I can't do a thorough analysis right now. But believe you me, if these people aren't ignorance and racist, then they're just ignorant and ignorant.

What constitutional rights are they concerned will be taken away? That's what I can't figure out. We just had a president who denied people their constitutional freedom of speech and right to privacy. He disregarded the Geneva Conventions and US law. He denied people the right of habeus corpus; sent random people to black sites; he lied us into war. And they're worried about this particular president corroding constitutional rights?

Bush Co ram the PATRIOT act through Congress in a matter of months; yet, they're worried about how fast Obama is going. Bush Co put us into two, yes two, unnecessary wars, one of which he lied to Congress about. Neither war was paid for. He signed tax cuts without paying for them. Passed Medicare Part D without paying for it. And they're worried about the debt Obama is running to get us out of this economic crisis. They even say he doesn't know anything about economics. "What? Huh?" Apparently, not only do they know nothing about economics, they know even less about history.
And all their suspicion of ACORN but nothing about the fraud of billions of dollars by likes of KBR and Halliburton and Xe (formerly Blackwater), groups who have killed soldiers and civilians. Groups who have raped American citizens working for them. Nothing.

The reason I question how much the researchers know about race dynamics is that they apparently don't know that you don't have to say "black" or "race" to be making racist statements. Certain racist themes about black people have been around so long, you don't need to say "black" or "African American" to be talking in racist terms. For instance, our part president couldn't hardly put a complete sentence together, but it's Obama whose education they question? They're "afraid" of this president because his talk is too "smooth." That doesn't smack of "jive talkin' nigger" to you?